Parata's Education Plans Worrying!

"Learning is Earning", this economic mantra appeared throughout Education Minister Hekia Parata's speech this morning when she made some pre-budget announcements regarding National's plans for education.

Unlike her predecessor, Anne Tolley, Parata acknowledges that our education system is a largely successful one:

"We have an education system that is among the best in the world. It gives our students a platform to compete here at home and internationally. Four out of five kids are successfully getting the qualifications they need from school and we must celebrate their success and the professionals in our system who make that possible every day."

However Parata still ignores the reality behind those children who struggle and continues to lay the blame for underachievement on the teaching profession.

"Too many of the kids are falling behind because they are not getting the quality teaching and leadership that all the evidence tells us makes the difference for Maori and Pasifika learners, those who come from low socio-economic homes, or have special needs."

One would think that when her government's own green paper on vulnerable children recognizes a wider issue in terms of child health and welfare and that income inequities and poverty would be major contributing factors to educational achievement. Research actually shows that the influence of a teacher on educational achievement is only 10-20% of all relevant factors. Even our decile ranking and associated funding of schools is based on the incomes of the school communities and recognizes that household incomes have a large bearing on educational outcomes.

National have continued with their policy of giving with one hand and taking with the other as they shuffle money within their commitment to austerity and a zero budget. They plan to partially fund extra initiatives by increasing class sizes and cutting expenditure on teacher salaries which, Parata claims, will free up $43 million. To justify cuts they cherry pick research and they have long made use of education academic John Hattie's claim that it is teaching, not class size that has the biggest influence on achievement. Increasing class sizes is a useful way of limiting spending when teachers salaries are a major part of the education budget, yet to say increasing class size won't have a negative impact is nonsensical. If you had an excellent teacher in a classroom, then increased the size of the class they taught there would have to be a negative impact on the children's learning and an increase in workload for the teacher concerned.

Margaret Wu, an internationally regarded education expert, warns against making wild assumptions based on data. Parata makes a wild assumption when she claims that because teacher numbers have increased over the last ten years, yet learning achievement has plateaued, it supports the view that teacher numbers are not important. Over the last ten years we have also seen huge social challenges from growing numbers of children living in disadvantaged backgrounds, the sacking of many advisors, a cutting in funding for the Ministry of Education (which also received a poor performance review) and the introduction of the highly flawed National Standards. There are many factors that may contribute to a plateau of achievement and one could easily say that if teacher numbers hadn't increased the situation could have been so much worse.

So how will the Minister's plans impact on the average teacher? There will be an increase in class size, which means an increase in workload. There will be no extra spending on professional development (which has largely been focussed on National Standards) and, with the sacking of all advisors outside of literacy and numeracy, does not support the wider curriculum. Salaries will probably be frozen as this is the area the government intends to make savings in and finally with a renewed focus on teacher appraisals and performance pay, higher levels of accountability and paperwork will probably result. Most models of performance pay also result in the end of collegiality between teachers, which is essential for ensuring the sharing of good ideas and adding to a positive school culture. Of course the added stress of having to shoulder the blame of educational underachievement and the constant media beat ups on underperforming teachers and sex offenders in schools makes the teaching environment an increasingly negative one.

And how will the changes impact on children, which surely should be the driver for any educational change? Many children will find themselves in larger classes where there will be fewer opportunities to to have individual attention from their teacher. Their teacher will be under greater pressure and will be spending more time on assessment and documentation than planning exciting and engaging learning experiences. Their teacher will not have access to as many new ideas as teachers compete against each other to access performance pay. As there is no extra funding to support professional development in curriculum areas outside literacy and numeracy and as National Standards continue to drive teaching, subjects like science and technology will continue to be under taught. With the mantra of "learning is earning" and suggestion that children's learning should have a career focus from year eight, there will probably be outside influence on what curriculum choices will fit with economic development rather than personal growth.

There is much to be worried about!

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Anonymous said…

This is indeed worrying news. An ex teacher I remember classes of up to 36 in the 70s & early 80s in a school with classrooms built for 30 max. I recall also having 2 mainstreamed children given me one year when I already had a class of 32 in a low decile school, it was two extremely stressful years. I was exhausted at the end of every week,but what disturbed me most was the sense that I wasn't giving the time I needed to, to the large number of pupils that required extra assistance and that was at both ends of the spectrum. Parents really need to get up in arms over this but I fear that no matter what we do protest, strike whatever this government will take not a scrap of notice. What is so disconcerting is that we have another 2.5 years more of this regime who are so far away from the 'ordinary' kiwi that they seem to see as a joke!

I totally agree with what you are saying, anonymous, I too have experienced large classes in the high 30s including special needs children. I got these classes because I was considered capable of managing them but at the cost of my mental health and my relationship with my family.

Yes good teachers can manage larger classes but they do far better with smaller ones. This isn't about meeting children's needs but saving money and pretending to do the right things. If everything turns pear shaped we all know who will get the blame. again.

Popular posts from this blog

The latest Unicef report has us languishing at the bottom of the developed world in relation to the health and welfare our children and youth. This report was based on the data our government collects and concerningly, with regards to child poverty, a ranking wasn't provided because of a refusal to follow standard practice (an admission of failure?). In many documented areas we are seriously neglecting our young people (ranking numbers are determined by the data provided from a maximum of 41 developed countries):Child Poverty (41/41?) I consider that we must be by far the worst in the developed world for child poverty when the Government refuses to use the same measures as other countries so that we can be ranked. Our Children's Commissioner and the Child Poverty Monitor currently state that 14% of our children suffer from material hardship. We have a much higher threshold to determine this and require 7 elements to recognise hardship, while most other countries use only two.…

Metiria Turei's AGM admission has exposed the inequality, racism and meanness that thrives in New Zealand society.

There are few people who can look back at themselves as young adults (18-24 years) without remembering past decisions and actions that we wish could be replayed with our current knowledge and experience. Times when we badly mismanaged relationships; broke the law and got away with it (or not); impulsively squandered money or said or did something stupid while intoxicated.

The National Government probably passed its "use by" date well before the last election. It has held power through clever PR and an affable Prime Minister, despite achieving little of note over nine years. However, John Key is no fool, he resigned because his money trading, sixth sense told him the odds of winning another term in 2017 were not great. The years of mismanagement were being increasingly revealed and the election would be the Opposition's to lose.

The Government is rapidly running out of excuses for its lack of competence. After nine years it is hard to blame the previous Labour Government for things that are happening now. The Global Financial Crisis occurred in 2007-2008 (a decade ago) and the Christchurch earthquake happened seven years ago. Whatever the country is dealing with now is largely down to National's governance.

What I find interesting is the eventual demise of this Government may be triggered by Melanie Reid's investigative work on th…